Category Archives: Cap and Trade

Bernie Sanders, the self-professed far left socialist from Vermont, compares global warming that’s right, I mean climate change, or whatever they have changed it to, to fit their agenda, deniers to Nazi sympathizers/Holocaust deniers. The liberals are great at just cutting off debate by throwing carpet bombs at any opposition. Slinging words like Nazi and racist as often as they do, has taken away from the seriousness of these words, and the American public is getting tired of it.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is comparing climate change skeptics to those who disregarded the Nazi threat to America in the 1930s, adding a strident rhetorical shot to the already volatile debate over climate change.

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s,” said Sanders, perhaps the most liberal member of the Senate, during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “During that period of Nazism and fascism’s growth-a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!”

Correct me if I’m wrong Bernie, but wasn’t your far left idol, FDR, one of those individuals who ignored warnings about World War II until Pearl Harbor was hit? I also believe if there is anybody who is currently denying a war and acting like Neville Chamberlain it’s our very own President and many of you in Congress.

Sanders’ reference to the Nazi threat is sure to enrage Republicans who are already skeptical of the science behind climate change. But Sanders wasn’t the only one throwing bombs at a hearing that was ostensibly about the EPA’s fiscal 2011 budget. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called global warming a “hoax,” is asking for an investigation into the science used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the governing body on climate science.

Shouting down debate only proves that liberals are afraid that someone may find out that this was in fact the greatest hoax of our time; that their new beloved theology could be disproved by facts. The best form of democracy is healthy, civil debate, and I believe the American people want transparency on all issues that our government finds so important.

The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.

More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.

One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

Funny, I think I might feel uncomfortable signing an oath to not speak ill of data I’m trying to research and prove as fact. This is not a settled science as much as anybody would like to claim it is. Theories exist and until they are proven as fact, they merely remain as theories – which is why science seems to take forever. The idea that man can play such a huge role in something as large as our globe and the climate is sheer arrogance and egoism. Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has ebbed and flowed for decades if not eons. The more emails, the more proof, the more information that comes out on this hoax, the better for everybody. That’s not to say that people who disagree do not believe in taking care of their environment, it just means that the skeptics have serious doubts as to the legitimacy of any type of man-made climate change. I’d like to know how liberals can rail against big oil but seem to have no problem when their own side of the aisle is in the tank for Green Corporations and have much to gain from cap and tax – how is that any different?

Signing a pledge such as the one above seems to worsen the credibility and cause conflict of interest among people who became scientists to prove and disprove based on factual evidence. What if, at some point, global warming is proven to be a hoax? Scientists should not be held down by some oath that forces them to hide significant information from the public. There are other times in history when people had to pledge their allegiance to a cause, and that usually didn’t end very well…

The problem with the petition as a form is also a problem with the Met Office petition’s substance. The purpose of the petition is to shore up scientists’ authority by vouching for their integrity. But signing a loyalty oath under pressure from the government is itself a corrupt act. Anyone who signs this petition thereby raises doubts about his own integrity. And once again, the question arises: Why should any layman regard global warmism as credible when the “consensus” rests on political machinations, statistical tricks and efforts to suppress alternative hypotheses?

IMHO, any scientist who signs this petition has lost all credibility to be fair, reasonable, balanced, and able to report fact – not some fiction in which they signed onto.

This post is really just a plug for a new website that has been created for Independent Conservatives who are tired of Republicans In Name Only (RINO). Those who would easily sell out their own family for corporate funding, lobbies, and their own power-hungry nature.

As many recall a couple month ago, Mark Kirk (R-IL) voted for Cap and Trade in the House of Representatives. He, along with 7 other Republicans, voted for the bill that made no mention of coal, nuclear energy, or our own oil resources. The bill was a monstrous mechanism to control the lives of Americans and tax the middle class, however, the Cap and Traitors, whom are aptly named, went ahead and voted against their principles and their constituents.

Mark Kirk is now trying to run for the open Senate seat that Roland Burris and Blagojevich tainted recently. I could care less if the person who wins the seat is a Democrat or a Republican, as long as they stand on principle and not on power and greed. It’s time for the establishment to be sent packing and Mark Kirk is the epitome of the problem in DC.

To check out the site Republicans United Against Mark Kirk For US Senate – click here.